Why the Republicans must Lose

Radley Balko makes the libertarian case for Obama as the lesser of two evils. It's a must-read for any center-right libertarian-inclined voter:

The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector...

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons. First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed.

They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

Caring for your fellow man, or helping your friends and family is perfectly compatible with the pursuit of your own happiness.

Here are a few quotes from "The Virtue of Selfishness" which may help illustrate this:
"Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character."

"“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves)."

"Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish values: love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.

A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice."

In reply to this comment by EnzoblueI don't feel my ultimate goal is pursuit of my own happiness. I also can't feel happiness when others around me suffer, so I'm somewhat altruistic at base and have been since I was a toddler, (so my mother says), and I find it a hard pill to swallow when she tells me I should defy that instinct.

>> ^imstellar28:
although we might have to use hand gestures (a form of non-verbal language)

So by which hand motion do I clearly undertake a contractual obligation to hold the rope? Gesture is just an extreme case of language which shows the inherent vagueness in communication. How is the clear, predictable activity of a fetus not just as clear a communication of it's intent? On what grounds do you disregard it's action, but consider the waving of my hand an unambiguous indication of mine.

Here is the biological definition: ...

I understand the words definition, I am challenging your understanding of the word as it applies to reality, where the lines are not as clean as you appear to need for your arguments to hold.

Sentience ... can be clearly defined.

If you can do so without resorting to circular definitions, I would be happy to hear it.
sentient -> mankind -> sentient ... seems a bit strained.

Given an arbitrary object, how do you test it for sentience, make sure your test works for humans passed out cold in a drunken stupor.

Republicans do get research, they believe that the private sector can handle research tasks for society, which is not really true since Pfizer and other biomedical firms would not go undertaking research or publish their work if there is no monetary pay off at the end, especially given that almost 80% of research ends with no pay off.

These firms are corporations seeking a profit, not a social good. Viagra was a shot in the dark, they were trying to make something for the heart when they noticed that alot of the testers mentioned getting boners.

Furthermore I think the investment priorities have been heavily skewed in the favor of defense and security industries, along with the usual military research (flavor of the month? Network centric warfare). Even then alot of these projects are being funded by the government, alot of them as well end up having no viable real world application, if you really think everything researched or built has an application we must live on different planets.

I believe in government funded research but I also think that for the last 8 years there has been alot of wasteful spending on high tech military and security projects, panic has lead to a shotgun like application of funding resulting in a massive growth in the security industry and creating its own lobby component in Washington - look for them to push forward various threats to guarantee continued growth/existence, not an announcement that America remains safe.

This kind of approach has meant that the US has overlooked other threats such as biochemical and cyber attacks. There isn't a cohesive plan, only more investment into network centric warfare, which as a doctrine of war has been marvelous in conquering uniformed armies but is unable to bring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan because the doctrine was not written to fight a asymmetrical war with combatants being part of the civilian population, so you have very few soldiers trying to pacify very large populations.

Okay I didn't mean this to turn into an essay.

I doubt either candidate will reign in government expenses. The whole "pre and post 9/11 world" thing is highly political and would mean a continued military and security industrial complex for the foreseeable future. Alot of it will consist of eavesdropping on Americans themselves.

Seriously? Rekindle the Cold War?

Because plans of this undertaking can be started from scratch overnight, too.

>> ^wraith:
Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?

Of course. You can find "evidence" to support pretty much whatever you want to say. You've already heard quite a bit from Wynder, but if you need more just google "guns reduce crime" and read any of the 447,000 hits on that. It's difficult to compare country for country because we have such different cultures. Unfortunately, we have a culture that is more accepting of violent crime than others, so we tend to experience more violent crime.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.
And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?

I've heard that the exact number of times I've heard that about getting SHOT thirty times. If you have to reload, it's not an accident. Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL of all guns. I believe that you should be QUALIFIED to own a gun and undertake the necessary gun safety training. If your kids can get into your guns, you should be held criminally responsible for accidents. Lock them up, don't keep them loaded, don't teach them how to use them until they know how to do it safely, use extra safeties, etc. My father owned about a half dozen guns while I was growing up. I first shot a gun when I was four, but before then it was firmly impressed on my mind that guns are DANGEROUS if not handled properly. I knew that I had better NEVER get them out for any reason. My father never treated them like a toy, so I never thought that I should.

At this point, I own ZERO guns. I have two small boys and don't feel I have the means to safely store them in a way that will keep everyone safe, so I don't.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)

Sorry, I don't think Michael Moore has a terrific corner on truth. I also don't think the opinion "nut-jobs" matters much. My point still stands. I certainly don't think either of those options would be good for fighting a revolution because where would we all live when it was over? Your point is fallacious, I'm afraid. If the question was, should people own tanks, my answer would be maybe. We would need a way to properly police and control it, the same way we do with guns.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

Didn't you already ask for evidence? I agree, the laws don't work, but it's because they are built on a flawed concept. I'd be interested to see how many violent crimes are committed by individuals who follow all gun laws versus breaking them in the process.


Consider something for a moment: let's say we buy into the fear-inspiring arguments that are presented that Bush cancels the November election, disbands congress, and declares himself president for life. What would you do? Would you live in a police state for the rest of your life? Would you pick up rocks and start throwing them at tanks? Would you take a gun and vainly fight the tanks? Don't we need some kind of way to even the odds, so our "by the people, for the people" government and way of life is protected by and the for the same, instead of by permission, for the man?

Some kind of planetary alignment must have occurred to have someone this good looking be created with that level of intelligence and also the sort of testicular fortitude that is required for the job she undertakes.

"I can't, because i'm dying." "That's ok baby, i'm an undertaker." rofl

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I make my living as an artist, and part of my income comes from royalties, but I am very much opposed to current copyright and patent laws. The record industry isn't suffering because of piracy. The record industry is suffering because it is bloated, stagnant and boring.

The film makers and songwriters who are popular enough to be mass downloaded are too busy sniffing coke off a hookers ass through thousand dollar bills to give a fuck (Maddona and Lars excepted). The film makers and songwriters who are not popular enough to be downloaded would kill for the amount of exposure mass downloading would provide. This issue isn't really about the artists. It's about record execs who need a third yacht or a summer home on the French Riviera.

When the major record labels die, I will dance on their grave.

I also have a major problem with the concept that certain combinations of notes and words can be claimed as property by individuals. I have an even bigger problem with medical patents that allow drug companies to hold a monopoly on life saving drugs, allowing them to play extortionist or executioner to the misfortunate of the world. Our concept of economics is completely out of whack.

I have to respectfully disagree. Firstly, the sheer fact that major record/distributing institutions have survived is because they are an unfortunate necessity. Smaller artists simply cannot pull off a Radiohead/NiN and distribute their work single-handedly. The onerous costs and social networking involved in trans-continental product proliferation and promotion far exceed the capacity of a group of twenty-something year olds out of high school. Perhaps sometime not too far ahead in the future when high speed internet subscription reaches a certain level globally, file sharing promotion may play a pivotal role but as of now any such capacity is all too evidently dwarfed by the lucrative publicity big record companies can offer. If anything, traditional distribution companies will likely be replaced by online counterparts such as iTunes which will make previously culturally segregated media available to the world. In addition to that big record companies also act as financial lending institutions to unrealised artistic talent, usually in return for exclusivity deals and nowadays further encroaching upon merchandise and concert returns for years to come.

I think the real question should be, are record companies abusing the leverage in a predominantly oligarchic industry structure? I wholeheartedly agree that the methods being used by the RIAA and their associates are counter-productive, but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that these measures have come about due to affluent corporate executives scouring for additional earnings.

As for medical patents, again an even more apparent necessary evil. The costs involvement in clinical research and in particular testing and safety verification are exorbitant. Extortionate, even for the mammoth pharmaceuticals industry. Were it not for the presence of patents, then nobody would undertake such an 'investment' and medical breakthroughs would stagnate.

I joined for the top 15 and the funny comments. I stayed for the impressive coverage of obscure topics (not to mention every meme known to the net.)

...oh, who am I kidding, I can't keep up the facade any more. I signed up the same way everyone else did: by responding to a work at home classified ad for DLJ & Co. VideoSift is all an elaborate undertaking to boost your self-confidence, kronosposeidon. After a while it became apparent that voting for your videos wasn't doing the trick, so we added comment voting to give recognition to your, um, witticisms. I apologize to everyone for being the one to let the news slip. If you're all up for it I propose that we continue this grand experiment and never speak of this incident.

An inspiring idea, dft. I believe I must also undertake some research on this subject, albeit in a slightly different direction. The outline is as follows:

Criteria (as indicated by this video material):
All of my wife's (hereinafter, Test Subject No.1) underwear falls strictly into the 'naughty' category, as classified by one of my extremities. That's one.
Second-although I'm not entirely sure (more qualitative data need to be collected via hands-on approach/observations), it is likely Test Subject No.1 has masturbated at least once.

Hypothesis:
Test Subject No.1 is homosexual.

Method:
Upon initial brainstorming the most effective method for verifying the hypothesis seems to be subjecting Test Subject No.1 to camera-monitored and recorded close proximity of a visually pleasing specimen of the same gender, preferably homosexual, robed also in what can be classified as 'naughty' underwear. I also acknowledge other conditions such as downtempo music, presence of lit candles and a dip of aphrodisiac in the preceding cuisine/ventilation system might benefit eliciting a more rapid response from both Test Subjects.

I only wonder, to whom should I turn for financing such research?

bcglorf, there are better ways of influencing change then military incursion in the shape of troops, tanks and bombs. Whatever you can say doesn't absolve the current administration of undertaking cowboy misadventures in Iraq.

The incursion could have been better planned and carried out, but it wasn't because they were inept and didn't consider the long term implications of invading a nation, the same way the past administrations didn't consider how their strategy in Afghanistan would blow back into creating extremist Islamic terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.

There is so little thought put into this whole affair. But then again who cares. No one. The public is asleep on the War issue, there was more attention given to the Battle of Mogadishu in 1994.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I hope QuantumMushroom is watching with his "Iran delenda est" bullshit. To be honest, I don't think the US would seriously undertake to attack Iran- it's a big bluff as a way to get them to change policy.

I don't think it's an effective bluff though- as it's just strengthening the theocracy there- as the Iranians rally round the flag. Stupid NeoCon saber rattling.

'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry

A 23-year-old former Heathrow shop assistant who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and scrawled her extremist thoughts on till receipts has been handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence.
Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Malik, described as an "unlikely but committed" Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an jury at the Old Bailey of a charge under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

She worked at WH Smith at Heathrow, where she scribbled her extremist lyrics on till receipts. On one she wrote: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

But Malik told the jury she only adopted her "lyrical terrorist" nickname because she thought it was "cool" and insisted: "I am not a terrorist."

Malik had tears in her eyes as she left the dock, while her mother wept during the court hearing. The judge said Malik's crime was on the "margins" of the offence of which she was found guilty. He said Malik was of "good character" and from a "supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in".

"The Terrorism Act and the restrictions it imposes on the personal freedom exist to protect this country, its interests here and abroad, its citizens, and those who visit here. Its protection embraces us all. Its restrictions apply to us all, whatever our personal religious or political beliefs."

He told Malik that if she had been convicted of the more serious charge of possessing an article for terrorist purposes - of which the jury cleared her - she would have faced a jail term. But he said, while a custodial sentence was merited, she had already faced "extremely rigorous" bail conditions which were "tantamount to house arrest".

The court heard that she also spent five months in custody after being arrested in October last year. Malik's sentence was suspended for 18 months, with the condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work.

Outside court Malik's solicitor Iqbal Ahmed read out a statement on her behalf. He said: "The trial process has been a terrible ordeal for her and she is now relieved that it is all over. The jury found that she did not have the material for terrorist purposes which was an important part of her case. She now wants to get on with her life."

Last month, Malik was found guilty of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism by a majority of 10 to one. She cried as the verdict was read. Two female jurors were also in tears. The court heard that Malik stocked a "library" of material useful to terrorists at her family home in Southall, west London.

The court was told Malik was 20 years old when she "first started to consider Islam" and was "like most teenagers, somewhat rebellious". Malik had been interested in poetry, and had written love poems, followed by rap poems and later by "what can only be described as the distasteful poetry which has been mentioned in this trial".

John Burton, defending, said: "She became hooked on Abu Hamza-type addresses and that affected her mindset." The jury was told that she joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to spread terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told the court she visited a website linked to the jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons. The court also heard Malik belonged to a social networking website called hi5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way which I can".

Under favourite TV shows, she listed: "Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs." removed

After her conviction, Judge Peter Beaumont, the recorder of London, told her: "You have been, in many respects, a complete enigma to me."

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the decision by the judge to suspend the sentence. Inayat Bunglawala said: "It always seemed a rather bizarre decision to prosecute Samina when she is clearly not an actual terror plotter.

"Samina Malik was being prosecuted in effect for a thought crime because she had downloaded some material from the internet which anyone could download."
Mr Bunglawala said the case demonstrated how ill-conceived and "incredibly broad-ranging" the law is under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act. "Teenagers download some quite nihilistic material every day and they are not prosecuted," he said.

"The fact that this case went to court sends a very worrying signal that if you are Muslim and you are downloading from the Internet you may be judged to a quite different standard from others. Fortunately the judge has been sensible about this. The wider Muslim community must be relieved that she hasn't got a custodial sentence."

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Samina Malik was not prosecuted for writing poetry. Ms Malik was convicted of collecting information, without reasonable excuse, of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 states "Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare", but does allow "law enforcement including domestic riot control."

CS and OC gas/spray are classified as RCAs in the CWC. While they are not in the same ballpark as Serin, it's still illegal. Of course I suppose you could claim a loophole while working riot control "under the direction" of the local government in Iraq, that not technically being a use in "war".